Mobile phone masts linked to mysterious spikes in births

Do mobile phone towers make people more likely to procreate? Could it be possible that mobile phone radiation somehow aids fertilisation, or maybe there's just something romantic about a mobile phone transmitter mast protruding from the landscape?

These questions are our natural response to learning that variation in the number of mobile phone masts across the country (UK) exactly matches variation in the number of live births. For every extra mobile phone mast in an area, there are 17.6 more babies born above the national average.

SOURCE

What do you make of this ATS?

I'm in the dark when it comes to the stimulation of biological processes through electromagnetism - maybe the brains here could tell me something more about this?

Or is it just the case, that mobile phone masts make people horny?

Let the weird discussions begin!

The Revenant.

reply to post by The Revenant


LOL! They are very phallic in nature. Fertility symbols from around the world have utilized phallic symbols throughout history. Maybe there is something to it? Put enough things that rigid and protruding and eventually it will turn into sex?

I'm betting that the reason there are more pregnancies is because, with cell service, couples are able to set up more nooners!

Just sayin'

Peace,
Montana

reply to post by Montana


So DNA testing should be common in those areas? Most nooners are with mistresses instead of wives!

reply to post by getreadyalready


Hope ur wife doesnt read that, just sayin, lol

reply to post by The Revenant


yes it causes brain cancer to overwrite the normal thinking of poor people to screw like wild animals when they know they cant pay for it Interesting concept about birth rates and cell towers. Maybe its a frequency signal that produces over active hormones or its in the signal like a message just its so low in the frequency we cant make it out so our subconscious picks it up. Or maybe the radiation in the cell phone is microwaving peoples junk when in their pockets making them hyper-sexual. All jokes aside this is interesting.

reply to post by getreadyalready


What happens at lunch, stays at lunch!

Don't ask don't tell was only repealed in the military.

science.slashdot.org...

It's sad that members here can't do basic math, but it explains the quality of the posts and why most threads aren't worth the time to read.

reply to post by The Revenant


F&S because you proved most responders do NOT read the source article.

Interesting article, pointed exercise.

But I think they're wrong about so-called "rigorous" studies showing no causal link to cell phones and cancer. ...Games, all games.

reply to post by Zaphod


While these were my thoughts at first, and I do for the most part, agree with you.

However, the OP has brought a relatively interesting point into fruition which is;

Technology itself has affected procreation and the rates there of.

(A topic among itself)

Transportation... a few hundred years ago, it'd have taken you a HORSE to get to your little MISSES across town probably a day ride, at least. (that'd likely be the extent of LD-relationships)


(And it is MORE than likely cell phones play a LARGE role in increased sexual activity... if I didn't have my cell phone... and the girls I was calling didn't have cell phones... we'd rarely talk! I wouldn't even KNOW most of the people I know if it were for cell phones... sure you meet in person... but to stay in touch? Text messaging? The ability to talk without talking?

Let's talk about TEXT! it's endless... and VERY very interesting. ('s well as significant)
There's mountains more, galaxies more of interesting points that technology has to offer in terms of physical and mental change on this planet in a VERY small amount of time.

reply to post by Zaphod



For your information, I DID read the article, what does that have to do with my posts? I didn't find much credence in the science here, what little we were given. If you want to treat it seriously, feel free. I won't stop you, and I won't make snide remarks about how gullible the posts are.

Peace,
Montana

scientists say thre is no proof in this tho, well main streem 1's

Originally posted by Montana
reply to post by Zaphod

 

For your information, I DID read the article, what does that have to do with my posts? I didn't find much credence in the science here, what little we were given. If you want to treat it seriously, feel free. I won't stop you, and I won't make snide remarks about how gullible the posts are.

Peace,
Montana

You really don't get that this was an intentionally fake news article released to show how people will jump onto anything (as you did in your response)?

Originally posted by Zaphod
You really don't get that this was an intentionally fake news article released to show how people will jump onto anything (as you did in your response)?

Not being funny, but you're trolling.

This isn't a FAKE news article. Get a grip.

The Revenant.

Maybe the phone sex hotlines are getting more personal?


In all seriousness....

There could be a potential link if proper tests are done maybe radio waves can mess with natural brain waves. Maybe the people around radio towers just happen to be really horny. Could be a correlation or faulty measurement.

reply to post by Xiamara


Impoverished areas typically have higher birth rates. Impoverished neighborhoods are typically closer to industrial areas, high power transmission lines, and possibly these towers? Maybe this was a faulty study that didn't account for other variables, such as income rate, age of residents, etc.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Exactly, it could be the tower or another 1000 different things, as you said industrial areas tend to hold people of lower income. Maybe there was already a higher birth rate in that area before the towers went up. Maybe the birthrate in towns with a radio tower are going up because they can hold more business, so people feel like they are able to afford to have children.

Originally posted by The Revenant

Originally posted by Zaphod
You really don't get that this was an intentionally fake news article released to show how people will jump onto anything (as you did in your response)?

Not being funny, but you're trolling.

This isn't a FAKE news article. Get a grip.

The Revenant.

I'm not trolling, it's a fake news article to show how people will do exactly what people in this thread did. I even linked to the Slashdot article discussing it BEFORE it hit the wire. Quoting from my link:

"We frequently gripe about the poor quality of science reporting by the media. A Guardian blogger from the mathematics department at Queen Mary, University of London has made a honeypot press release to see how bad it can get. (Or maybe to have some fun trolling the media?) The statistic used is the strong link between the number of mobile phone masts in an area and the number of live births. Of course, there is no causal link because they are both instead based on a 3rd variable, the local population size. Slashdot readers can keep on eye on news sources over the weekend to see just how much traction the story gets and watch the train wreck in real-time"

You are incapable of reading, so you resort to calling me a troll?

Correlation vs. Causation. Classic example of a logic trap.

At best it may suggest an avenue for more study.

reply to post by The Revenant


Uh huh. Some of us are fighting for the Free Press and the freedom to access information.

While others exercise their right to freely voice their opinions, developed with NO attention to their attendant responsibility to inform themselves - even when the source information is in their face.

We need an icon showing someone banging themselves in the head with a stick.